The Red List of 2012 was released at the Rio +20 Earth Summit. It contains 132 species of plants and animals in India listed as critically endangered.[2][3][4]Birds1. White-bellied Heron(Ardeainsignis)2. Great Indian Bustard(Ardeotisnigriceps)3. Forest Owlet(Atheneblewitti)4. Baer's Pochard(Aythyabaeri)5. Spoon-billed Sandpiper(Eurynorhynchuspygmeus)6. Siberian Crane(Grusleucogeranus)7. White-rumped Vulture(Gyps bengalensis)8. Indian Vulture(Gyps indicus)9. Slender-billed Vulture(Gyps tenuirostris)10. Bengal Florican(Houbaropsisbengalensis)11. Himalayan Quail(Ophrysiasuperciliosa)12. Jerdon's Courser(Rhinoptilusbitorquatus)13. Pink-headed Duck(Rhodonessacaryophyllacea)14. Red-headed Vulture(Sarcogypscalvus)15. Sociable Lapwing(Vanellusgregarius)Fish1. Knifetooth sawfish(Anoxypristiscuspidata)2. Pondicherry shark(Carcharhinushemiodon)3. Ganges shark(Glyphisgangeticus)4. Deccan labeo(Labeopotail)5. Largetooth sawfish(Pristismicrodon)6. Longcomb sawfish(Pristiszijsron)Reptiles and amphibians1. Northern river terrapin(Batagurbaska)2. Red-crowned roofed turtle(Batagurkachuga)3. Leatherback sea turtle(Dermochelyscoriacea)4. Hawksbill sea turtle(Eretmochelysimbricata)5. Ghats wart frog(Fejervaryamurthii)6. Gharial(Gavialisgangeticus)7. Gundia Indian frog(Indiranagundia)8. Toad-skinned frog(Indiranaphrynoderma)9. Charles Darwin's frog(Ingeranacharlesdarwini)10. Rao's torrent frog(Micrixaluskottigeharensis)11. Amboli bush frog(Pseudophilautusamboli)12. White-spotted bush frog(Raorchesteschalazodes)13. Griet bush frog(Raorchestesgriet)14. Munnar bush frog(Raorchestesmunnarensis)15. Ponmudi bush frog(Raorchestesponmudi)16. Sacred Grove bush frog(Raorchestessanctisilvaticus)17. Shillong bubble-nest frog(Raorchestesshillongensis)18. Anaimalai flying frog(Rhacophoruspseudomalabaricus)Mammals1. Namdapha flying squirrel(Biswamoyopterusbiswasi)2. Himalayan wolf("Canishimalayensis")3. Kashmir stag(Cervuscanadensishanglu)4. Elvira rat(Cremnomyselvira)5. Andaman shrew(Crociduraandamanensis)6. Jenkins' shrew(Crocidurajenkinsi)7. Nicobar shrew(Crociduranicobarica)8. Sumatran rhinoceros(Dicerorhinussumatrensis)9. Kondana soft-furred rat(Millardiakondana)10. Pygmy hog(Porculasalvania)11. Javan rhinoceros(Rhinoceros sondaicus)12. Malabar large-spotted civet(Viverracivettina)

Asiatic Lion Reintroduction Project

TheAsiatic Lion Reintroduction Projectis an initiative of theIndianGovernment to provide safeguards to theAsiatic lion(Pantheraleopersica) fromextinctionin the wild by means of reintroduction. The last wild population of the Asiatic Lion is found in theGir Forestregion of the state ofGujarat. The single population faces the threats ofepidemics,natural disastersand otheranthropogenic factors. The project aims to establish a second independent population ofAsiatic Lionsat theKuno Wildlife Sanctuaryin the Indian state ofMadhya Pradesh.[1]However, the proposed translocation is unpopular in Gujarat and has been bitterly contested by the state government.Contents[hide] 1History 1.1Sheopur introduction of 1904 1.2The Chandraprabha relocation of 1957 1.3The WII Initiative 21993 PHVA report 3Project Framework 4Lion reintroduction at Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary 4.1Establishing the wildlife sanctuary 4.2Rehabilitation of villagers 5Opposition by the Gujarat government 6Supreme Court Verdict and aftermath 7Translocation plan 8See also 9References 10External linksHistory[edit]

Historical and proposed lion reintroduction sites in IndiaThe distribution of Asiatic Lion, once found widely in West and South Asia, dwindled to a single population in the Gir Forest National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary in India.[2]The population at Gir declined to 18 animals in 1893 but increased due to protection and conservation efforts to 284 in 1994.[3]The Gir Wildlife Sanctuary is now highly overpopulated with lions, the 2010 census showed the strength to be 411 lions.[4]There are numerous deaths in the population annually because of ever increasing competition between the human and animal overcrowding. Asiatic lion prides require largeterritoriesbut there is limited space at Gir wildlife sanctuary, which is boxed in on all sides by heavy human habitation.[1]Gir lions have started moving outwards from the sanctuary and establishing homes outside the protected areas. The lions are now spread over 16,000 square kilometres (6,200sqmi) in the vicinity of 1050 villages in three contiguous districts -Amreli,BhavnagarandJunagadh.[5]Sheopur introduction of 1904[edit]TheMaharaja of Gwalior, on being encouraged byLord Curzonin 1904, imported cubs ofAfrican Lionsand attempted to introduce them in the wild in the forests near Sheopur. The introduced lions took to raiding livestock and some even turned toman-eating, subsequent to which they were all eventually tracked down and shot.[6]The Chandraprabha relocation of 1957[edit]The concept of reintroduction for purposes of conservation was accepted in 1956 by the Indian Wildlife Board during a meeting of their executive committee at SasanGir and the offer by the state government ofUttar Pradeshto host a second population in the Chakia forests was accepted. In 1956 one lion and two lionesses were captured from Gir, placed in the Sakkarbuagh Zoo in Junagadh for nine months and translocated in 1957 to the 96 square kilometres (37sqmi)Chandra Prabha Sanctuary, newly established for the reintroduction, nearVaranasiinUttar Pradesh. An enclosure was created with a 3 metres (9.8ft) high barbed wire fence within the sanctuary in which the lions were temporarily housed before being released in the sanctuary. Initially the lions prospered increasing in number to four in 1958, five in 1960, seven in 1962 and eleven in 1965 after which the population died out inexplicably.Johnsingh (2006) attributes the failure of the translocation to three causes inadequate area, lack of systematic monitoring using scientific techniques and unrestricted movement of grazing animals throughout the sanctuary possibly leading to conflict with the herders.[1]Small size of area, the long period of captivity in Junagadh zoo, absence of education of the local villagers and lack of conflict resolution mechanism are also listed as contributory factors in Chellam and Johnsingh (1999).[7]The WII Initiative[edit]TheWildlife Institute of India(WII) began studying the Asiatic Lion in its habitat in from 1986 onwards and collected fundamental data about the lion, its feeding, use of habitat and ranging habits. Key findings of the study were that the lions largely preyed upon the wild herbivores such asSambar(Rusa unicolor) andChital(Axis axis) and that the size of home range was 70 square kilometres (27sqmi) for females and 140 square kilometres (54sqmi) for the males.[7]In 1990, the WII proposed the creation of a second wild population of Asiatic lions to safeguard the species against potential calamities in Gujarats Gir National Park.[8]1993 PHVA report[edit]In 1993, a workshop was held on the Population and Habitat Viability Assessment (PHVA) of Asiatic lion and the report was presented to the state forest departments inVadodara, Gujarat. State forest departments were asked to suggest suitable sites for reintroduction and provide the basic ecological data.[7]During the workshop, a number of teams were formed to focus on varied aspects of the conservation biology of the Asiatic lion such as monitoring, habitat (further subdivided into Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan sub-groups), population modelling, prey-base requirements, lion-human interactions, translocation, captive zoo animals, public education, veterinary, reproductive and genetic aspects etc.[9]The sites were assessed and ranked for suitability as follows:[9] Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary- found most suitable for reintroduction.[1] Sita Mata Wildlife Sanctuary- later rejected due to human interference and inadequate prey population.[1] Darrah-JawaharSagar Wildlife Sanctuary- later rejected due to degraded habitat and unsuitable geography.[1] Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary- assessed as having limited area, unsuitable terrain, limited water and prey base as well as disturbance.[9] Barda Wildlife Sanctuary- assessed as having scarcity of water, prey and forage, as well as encroachment and disturbance.[9]The PHVA report strongly favoured the scientific management of reintroduction of Asiatic Lions to another site:[9]The overwhelming consensus of the Workshop was that an alternative habitat for the Asiatic lion must be established with all possible speed, but without compromise of the accepted strategies and principles governing systematic and scientific reintroduction. This should be done simultaneously with strengthening effective protection and management of the Gir Forest and assuring the viability of the captive population and alternative genetic resources.The PHVA deliberations were followed by visits to the three most promising site, vizKuno, Darrah-Jawaharsagar and Sitamata WLS by a survey team of WII headed by DrRavi Chellam. The team evaluated sites over various parameters and compared the same with respect to Gir Forest for determining the suitability of sites. They presented their findings in 1995 to the Government of India and the state forest departments.[7][9]WII researchers confirmed that the Palpur-Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary was the most promising location to re-establish a free ranging population of the Asiatic lions and in 2007 certified it ready to receive its first batch of translocated lions.[10]Project Framework[edit]The framework of the Lion Introduction Project emerged from the transformation of a Monitoring Committee, set up by the Government of India, which met on 10 March 2004 for effective implementation of the reintroduction at Kuno.[11]At the meeting the WII Site Survey was examined and it was understood that KunoPalpur Sanctuary was the most suitable site for reintriduction. The Committee formulated a three phase framework for the conservation project to last for two decades as follows:[11] During the first phase, slated from 1995-2000, the 24 villages would be shifted out of the sanctuary and the habitat would be improved. The second phase would last from 2000 to 2005 and would include fencing off of the lion reintroduction site, the actual translocation, as well as research and monitoring. The final phase III would last from 2005 to 2015 and would focus on eco-development of the region.At that point in time, the project was in Phase II and 18 of the 24 villages had been rehabilitated from Kuno. The refusal of Gujarat state to provide lions was mentioned during this meeting by the Chief Wildlife Warden of Gujarat. A number of steps were approved with consensus which included the engaging of the Gujarat State Government as to the necessity of the project, preparation of a translocation road map, fresh assessment of prey base of Kuno by WII and continued funding support for welfare measures and habitat improvement for the existing fauna at Kuno.[11]Lion reintroduction at Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary[edit]

Asiatic Lion

Asiatic Lioness, named MOTI, at Bristol Zoo, England (1996).Establishing the wildlife sanctuary[edit]The Madhya Pradesh state forest department notified 345 square kilometres (133sqmi) of the KunoPalpur area as a Wildlife Sanctuary in 1981.[12]In April 2002, a separate Wildlife Division was established for Kuno, effectively increasing the protected area for wildlife to 1,268.861 square kilometres (489.910sqmi).[11]Rehabilitation of villagers[edit]Twenty four villages of theSahariyatribe, comprising 1545 families, were moved out from the core area and rehabilitated by the state government with assistance from the Central Government. Due to a paucity of suitable revenue lands in the vicinity of Kuno, the state government proposed relocating the villages on degraded protected forests, a move approved by theMinistry of Environment and Forests(MOEF) of the Government of India, which granted its approval under Section 2 of theForest (Conservation) Act 1980for diversion of 3,395.9 hectares (8,391 acres). By 2002-2003, all 24 villages and the identified families were relocated outside Kuno and the former village area converted into grasslands.[11]The Madhya Pradesh state government informed the Supreme Court that each family was given 2 hectares (4.9 acres) of cultivable land, in addition to 500 square metres (600sqyd) for housing along with building constructional material costing Rs 1,00,000/- per house. The net outflow to the Central Government was Rs.15 crores.[11]Major gaps remain in the implementation of the rehabilitation measures, with villagers alleging that they have got little of the rehabilitation package they were promised.[13][14]The negative economic impact of the displacement to villagers from Kuno sanctuary has raised a controversy over the merits of species preservation via dislocation of human populations living inside Protected Areas.[15]NGOs, such as theSamrakshan Trust, have been working for better rehabilitation of villagers who agreed to move out of the Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary.[16]Opposition by the Gujarat government[edit]In 2004, the state government refused to part with the first pride of 19 animals planned for relocation. The state considers the lions as "heritage of the state" and the issue of handing over lions has become a political issue.[17]Mangubhai Patel, then State Forest Minister, went on record to state that:[18]There is no need to shift lions from Gir. We will ensure their survival here.TheGujaratstate government has, over time, made various arguments against translocating lions to Madhya Pradesh (MP), such as that the Kuno sanctuary was not suitable lion habitat and that it had inadequate prey base, that MP had been unable to provide adequate protection to tigers in itsPanna National Parkand the lions if reintroduced there would be in danger, that the proposed reintroduction ofAfrican cheetahsin Kuno rendered it unsuitable for lion reintroduction.[19]Attacking the logic of a second home for lion outside the state, the Gujurat State Wildlife Department proposed new homes for lions in theBarda Wildlife Sanctuary[20]andBhavnagar Amreli Forestinstead.[21]Gir's lions have spread beyond the protective area and the measures of the state to engage this phenomenon are being portrayed as providing adequate dispersal to the lion population to prevent disease. Gujarat also played an emotional card declaring before the Supreme Court that the lion was inextricably bound to the culture of Gujarat and that it was a "family member", hence could not be provided for translocation to Kuno.This stand of Gujarat suffered a setback when theSupreme Court of Indiaon 15 April 2013, acknowledged translocation to Kuno as being in the best interest of the species and rejected the Gujarat Government's objections, instead ordering the translocation to be carried out within six months. Abandhwas called in the villages adjoining the SasanGir region on 18 April 2013 protesting the Supreme Court decision.[22]Supreme Court Verdict and aftermath[edit]In light of the State Government of Gujarat's refusal to permit reintroduction of Asiatic Lions, a writ petition was filed in 1995 by the Centre for Environment Law and WWF-I in the Indian Supreme Court to get the Gujarat State Government to release a few prides of Asiatic lions reintroduction in Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary. The Indian Supreme Court had fast tracked the case and the judgement was delivered on 16 April 2013, permitting the reintroduction of lions to Kuno over-ruling the objections of the Gujarat Government.[11]The Gujarat Government has filed on 1 July 2013 for a review in the Supreme Court of its 16 April ruling. In its petition, the Gujarat state government has claimed that:top carnivores have never been successfully translocatedThe state has put forward the argument that translocation would break social bonds between members of groups or prides, which are vital for lion survival. The reported presence of tiger cubs in Palpur-Kuno was emphasised saying that it could result in conflict between these top predators. The state proposed, instead, a second home for lions within Gujarat itself, claiming it would have numerous advantages including being in tune with international guidelines.[23]The continued reluctance of the state to part with lions for translocation has come under criticism by prominent environmentalists.[24]Post the verdict, fears have been voiced by Gujarati environmentalists over the gun culture of Madhya Pradesh and number of firearms in Sheopur, the region where the KunoPalpur sanctuary is located and it is suggested that translocation to such an area would be in violation of IUCN norms on the subject.[25]With the release ofIUCNguidelines on translocation, opponents of the project have cited from the provisions and also claimed that the history of translocations especially in India is dismal and hence translocation is not favoured.[26][27]The natural spread of over-populated lions from an original range of over 1,412 square kilometres (545sqmi) to an area extending over 10,500 square kilometres (4,100sqmi), is considered to mitigate against the risk of epidemic disease.[28]Translocation plan[edit]The plan is toreintroducea pride or two of wild, free-ranging Asiatic Lions fromGir Forestin the neighboring Indian state ofGujaratto start with.[29]In compliance with the Supreme Court order of 15 April 2013, theMinistry of Environment and Forestshas constituted a panel for deciding the best course of action in translocation of animals to Gir. The panel comprises 12 members including member secretaryNational Tiger Conservation Authority, the Chief Wildlife Wardens of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, memberWildlife Institute of India, and scientists Drs Ravi Chellam, Y.V. Jhala, NK Ranjeet Singh and PR Sinha. The panel will advice both the states on technical aspect of transloction, decide the composition of animals to be translocated, select the prides and animals, supervise the translocation, monitor it and periodically report to the Ministry.[30]During the first deliberations on 29 July 2013, the panel acceded the need to follow the recent IUCN translocation guidelines but brushed aside Gujarat's objections against the process. A two member team comprising Dr Ravi Chellam and Dr Y.V. Jhala has been set up to decide the translocation protocol and report within six weeks.[31]Gujarat objected to meeting of the 12 member panel on 29 July 2013 before its petition had been reviewed and also to the presence of tiger experts on the panel, claiming that lion experts from Gujarat had been ignored.[32]

Tiger reserves of IndiaFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThere are 53tigerreserves inIndia(21-6-2011) which are governed byProject Tigerwhich is administered by theNational Tiger Conservation Authority.[1]There were an additional six proposed and four approved in principle reserves that are not yet declared. Assam was the place where this project was working since 1800 as a foundation PSH tigerList of Tiger Reserves in India[edit]S.No.StateTiger ReserveYear Estd.Est. No. of TigersTotal Area (km2)Management status

1AssamKaziranga Tiger Reserve200642859very goodGood tiger density

2AssamManas Tiger Reserve1973-74352840goodPoor tiger density, Recovering from prolonged disturbance due toBodounrest

3AssamNameri Tiger Reserve1999200037344satisfactoryEncroachment and tree cutting by locals

4Arunachal PradeshNamdapha Tiger Reserve1982-83371985satisfactoryLow tiger density, Extremism, encroachment byLisus

5Arunachal PradeshPakhui Tiger Reserve1999200036862goodGood tiger density

6Andhra PradeshNagarjunsagar-Srisailam Tiger Reserve1982-83293568poorLow tiger densityLeft wing extremism(Naxalite)

7BiharValmiki Tiger Reserve1989-9042840satisfactoryLow tiger density extremism

8ChhattisgarhIndravati Tiger Reserve1982-83392799poorSeverely affected byNaxalites, Out of bounds

9ChhattisgarhGuru Ghasidas Tiger Reserve2010 (pro)712899satisfactorySeparated fromSanjay National ParkinMadhya Pradesh

10JharkhandPalamau Tiger Reserve1973-74191026PoorLow tiger density, Left wing extremism

11KarnatakaBandipur Tiger Reserve1973-7489866very goodGood tiger density

12KarnatakaNagarhole (extension) Tiger Reserve1999200047643goodGood tiger density

13KarnatakaBhadra Tiger Reserve1998-9936492very goodLow tiger density

14KeralaPeriyar Tiger Reserve1978-7977925very goodThere are an estimated 53 tigers (2010) in the reserve

15Tamil Nadu/KeralaAnnamalaiTiger Reserve2008-09491019very goodModerate tiger density

16Madhya PradeshBandhavgarh Tiger Reserve1993-94791162very goodGood tiger density

17Madhya PradeshBori-Satpura Tiger Reserve19992000441486very goodPoor tiger density

18Madhya PradeshKanha Tiger Reserve1973-74871945very goodGood tiger density

19Madhya PradeshPanna Tiger Reserve1994-9518542poorRecovering from local extinction of tiger due to poaching. Dacoit infestation.

20Madhya PradeshPench Tiger Reserve1992-9364758very goodGood tiger density

21MaharashtraMelghat Tiger Reserve1973-74451677goodLow tiger density

22MaharashtraPench Tiger Reserve1998-9935257goodModerate tiger density

23MaharashtraTadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve1993-94100[8]620goodVery Good tiger density, High rate of man tiger conflicts

24MaharashtraSahyadri Tiger Reserve[9]200846569satisfactory9 tigers (2007)

25MizoramDampa Tiger Reserve1994-95485 00goodLow tiger density due to ecological reasons

26OdishaSimlipal Tiger Reserve1973-74642750goodmust visit this place,in core area good tiger density, green around

27RajasthanRanthambhore Tiger Reserve1973-74681334goodGood tiger density

28RajasthanSariska Tiger Reserve1978-795866poorRecovering from local extinction of tiger due to poaching

29Tamil NaduKalakad-Mundathurai Tiger Reserve1988-8993800very goodLow tiger density due to ecological reasons

30Tamil NaduMudumalai National Park200764321very goodModerate tiger density

31KeralaParambikulam Tiger Reserve201058391[10]very goodModerate tiger density

32Uttar PradeshDudhwa Tiger Reserve1987-88141811goodGood tiger density, Poaching along borders

33UttarakhandJim Corbett Tiger Reserve1973-741461316goodGood tiger density

34West BengalBuxa Tiger Reserve1982-8329759goodLow tiger density offences by jobless tea plantation workers

35West BengalSunderbans Tiger Reserve1973-74892585very goodGood tiger density

36ChhattisgarhUdanti&Sitanadi Tiger Reserve[11]2008-09541580poorLow tiger density

37OdishaSatkosia Tiger Reserve[12]200731988poorLow tiger density

38ChhattisgarhAchanakmar Tiger Reserve[13]200842963satisfactoryLow tiger density

39KarnatakaAnshiDandeli Tiger Reserve200741875satisfactoryLow tiger density

40Madhya PradeshSanjay Dubri Tiger Reserve200856831poorVery low tiger density

41KarnatakaBannerghatta tiger and lion reserve1978116zoonot a Project Tiger reserve

42Tamil NaduSathyamangalam Tiger Reserve20134752461 tigers (2012)

43KarnatakaBiligiriRangaswamy Temple Wildlife Sanctuary20104054026 tigers (2011)

44KarnatakaKudremukh Tiger Reserve201162360[14]28 tigers (2013)

45Uttar PradeshKawal Tiger Reserve2011-6-15[15]4289338 tigers (2012)

46MaharashtraNagzira-Navegaon Tiger Reserve28 Nov, 2013[16]20 (Nov, 2013)700Goodwould be home to surplus tigers from Tadoba Tiger Reserve

47MaharashtraBor Tiger Reserve2011 pro)15

48Uttar PradeshPilibhit Tiger Reserve2010 In-principle approval431089

49OdishaSunabeda Tiger Reserve2010 In-principle approval44856

50Madhya PradeshRatapani Tiger Reserve2010 In-principle approval45674

59GoaMhadei Tiger Reserve2011 (pro)52[17]

52Uttar PradeshSuhelwa Tiger Reserve2010 (pro)50

53RajasthanMukundara Hills Tiger Reserve2011 In-principle approval[18][19]46

Steps Taken for Protection of Endangered Species

The Government has taken several steps for protection of endangered species of wild animals in the country, which are as following:-i.Legal protection has been provided to wild animals against hunting and commercial exploitation under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.ii.The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 has been amended and made more stringent. Thepunishment for offences under the Act havebeen enhanced. The Act also provides for forfeiture of any equipment, vehicle or weapon that is used for committing wildlife offence(s).iii.Protected Areas, viz., National Parks, Sanctuaries, Conservation Reserves and Community Reserves covering important wildlife habitats have been created all over the country under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 to conserve wild animals and their habitats.iv.Financial and technical assistance is provided to the State/ Union Territory Governments under the Centrally Sponsored Schemes of Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats', Project Tiger and Project Elephant for providing better protection to wildlife, and improvement of its habitat.v.The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has been empowered under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 to apprehend and prosecute wildlife offenders.vi.The State/Union Territory Governments have been requested to strengthen the field formations and intensify patrolling in and around the Protected Areas.vii.The Wildlife Crime Control Bureau has been set up to strengthen the enforcement of law for control of poaching and illegal trade in wildlife and its products.viii.Strict vigil is maintained by the officials of State Departments of Forests and Wildlife.The periodic assessments carried out in respect of prioritized species, rhinoceros and lion, have indicated improvement in their population status.The Ministry of Environment & Forests also provides financial assistance to State Governments for undertaking RecoveryProgrammesfor saving critically endangered species as a component of the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats. Budget is not allocated separately for this component. At present, sixteen species have been prioritized for taking up such recoveryprogrammeswhich include Snow Leopard, Bustards (includingFloricans), River Dolphin, Hangul,NilgiriTahr, Marine Turtles, Dugongs and coral reefs, Edible-nestSwiftlets, Asian Wild Buffalo, NicobarMegapode, Manipur Brow-antlered deer, Vultures, Malabar civet, the great one-horned rhinoceros, Asiatic Lion, Swamp deer andJerdonsCourser.Under the component RecoveryProgrammesfor Saving Critically Endangered Species of the Centrally Sponsored Scheme Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats (CSS-IDWH)financialassistance has been provided for eight critically endangered species including Snow Leopard, Hangul, Dugongs, Edible-nestSwiftlets, Asian Wild Buffalo, Manipur Brow-antlered deer, Vultures and Asiatic Lion as per the proposals received from various State/Union Territory Governments.The details of financial assistance released to the State/Union Territory Governments for undertaking RecoveryProgrammesfor saving critically endangered species under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats during the last three years are as follows:YearAmount released(Rs. inlakhs)

2009-1072.95

2010-11858.593

2011-12788.317